The Second Amendment in 2017

Let’s start with some numbers. Here are some facts provided by the British Broadcasting
Corporation (BBC). “Just the facts, ma’am.”

In the United States in 2015, “There were 372 mass shootings . . . killing 475 people and
wounding 1,870 . . . - - -
“Some 13,286 people were killed in the US by firearms in 2015 . . . and 26,819 people were
injured [those figures exclude suicide]. . .
“. . . The number of gun murders per capita in the US in 2012 - the most recent year for
comparable statistics - was nearly 30 times that in the UK, at 2.9 per 100,000 compared with just 0.1.
“Of all the murders in the US in 2012, 60% were by firearm compared with 31% in Canada,
18.2% in Australia, and just 10% in the UK.
“So many people die annually from gunfire in the US that the death toll between
1968 and 2011 eclipses all wars ever fought by the country. . . there were about 1.4 million firearm deaths in that
period, compared with 1.2 million US deaths in every conflict from the War of Independence to Iraq.
[Emphasis mine]
“No official figure exists but there are thought to be about 300 million guns in
the US, held by about a third of the population. That is nearly enough guns for every man, woman and child in the
country. [Emphasis mine]
“The right to own guns is regarded by many as enshrined in the Second Amendment to the US
Constitution, and fiercely defended by lobby groups such as the National Rifle Association . . .
“The US spends more than a trillion dollars per year defending itself against terrorism,
which kills a tiny fraction of the number of people killed by ordinary gun crime.
“According to figures from the US Department of Justice and the Council on Foreign Affairs,
11,385 people died on average annually in firearm incidents in the US between 2001 and 2011.
“In the same period, an average of 517 people were killed annually in terror-related
incidents. Removing 2001, when 9/11 occurred, from the calculation produces an annual average of just
31.” (Ref. 1)

“Each year in the United States, approximately 30,000 people, or 80 per day, die from gun
violence. . . The murder rate in America is 15 times higher than in other first-world countries; the majority of
these murders are committed with guns. As for the notion that guns are necessary in order to defend oneself from an
intruder with a gun: One study of three U.S. cities revealed that injuries involving guns kept at home almost always
resulted from accidental firings, criminal assaults, homicides and suicides by the residents, not self-defense
scenarios. . .” (Ref. 2)

Here are a few more final facts. Gun-related deaths in America wildly outpace our
peer nations. More people now die by guns than by cars. And finally, America's gun violence problem goes far beyond
homicides: Most gun-related deaths are by suicide.

THE SECOND AMENDMENT

According to gun enthusiasts, the Second Amendment – the second of the first ten amendments
to the U.S. Constitution which are known as the Bill of Rights - protects the right of the people to keep and bear
arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, some two and a quarter centuries ago. The Supreme Court of the United
States has ruled that the right belongs to individuals, while also ruling that the right is not unlimited and does
not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices.[4]

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to
keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” (Ref. 5)
It should be noted that the introductory phrase "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
free State" conveniently gets ignored by gun rights advocates.

Let’s remember that the revolution against England was fought when the colonies did not
have a standing army. General George Washington recruited members for his army but the numbers were remarkably
insufficient to win that war. At that time, the individual colonies had militias comprised of civilian volunteers.
The colonies did not provide guns and ammunition for those volunteers. Individual members had to provide their own.
It was the citizen-soldier militias from each of the thirteen colonies that provided the much-needed additional
troops to General Washington.

Immediately following the Revolution, the colonies wanted to ensure that the militias would
be available to be called upon to defend the united colonies whenever the need arose. Since the volunteer members of
the militias at that time had to provide their own arms, the Second Amendment to the Constitution began with the
introductory words, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State", quite clearly
showing that the words, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” applied to citizens being called to serve
in the colonies’ (and later the states’) militias. That introductory phrase is no longer valid.
The United States for many years has had a standing army with which to defend the nation. State militias, as such,
no longer exist, having been supplanted by the National Guard. The members of these various National Guard units -
the successors to the militias of the original colonies - do not have to provide their own arms. Consequently,
the introductory phrase of the second amendment no longer applies and, if it no longer applies, the
remaining words of the second amendment, likewise, no longer have standing. Indeed, today’s gun owners are
not a well, or otherwise, regulated militia. Today, the closest thing to the militias of America’s War of
Independence are various extremist and fringe groups – groups such as the neo-Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan, the Black
Liberation Army and the Weathermen. America’s citizen-soldiers of the 21st century are not the colonial Minutemen
of the 18th century.

So, if gun advocates want to have a legal right to bear arms under the Constitution of the
United States, they should work to have an amendment passed that simply states: “The right of the people to keep and
bear arms shall not be infringed.” - with no preconditions.[6] In any
case, it should be apparent to all that the Second Amendment is no longer applicable and should be repealed
forthwith.

“That well-regulated militia {in the second amendment} was replaced by a free standing army
two hundred years ago. The founding fathers in all their wisdom could not foresee the future. What we have today is
the result of a centuries old document and politicians who refuse to revisit it.” (Ref. 7)

“As America grapples with a relentless tide of gun violence, pro-gun activists have come to
rely on the Second Amendment as their trusty shield when faced with mass-shooting-induced criticism. In their
interpretation, the amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms—a reading that was upheld by the Supreme
Court in its 2008 ruling in District of Columbia. v. Heller. Yet most judges and scholars who debated the
clause's awkwardly worded and oddly punctuated 27 words in the decades before Heller almost always arrived at the
opposite conclusion, finding that the amendment protects gun ownership for purposes of military duty and collective
security. It was drafted, after all, in the first years of post-colonial America, an era of scrappy citizen militias
where the idea of a standing army—like that of the just-expelled British—evoked deep mistrust. - - -
“. . . The Heller decision, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, is rooted in
originalism, the concept that the Constitution should be interpreted based on the original intent of the founders.
While Waldman emphasizes that we must understand what the framers thought, he argues that giving them the last word
is impossible—and impractical. ‘We're not going to be able to go back in a time machine and tap James Madison on the
shoulder and ask him what to do,’ he says. ‘How the country has evolved is important. What the country needs now is
important. That's certainly the case with something as important and complicated as guns in America.’ - - -
“. . . When the Supreme Court ruled in Heller, Justice Scalia said he was
following his doctrine of originalism. But when you actually go back and look at the debate that went into drafting
of the amendment, you can squint and look really hard, but there's simply no evidence of it being about individual
gun ownership for self-protection or for hunting. Emphatically, the focus was on the militias. To the framers, that
phrase ‘a well-regulated militia’ was really critical. In the debates, in James Madison's notes of the
Constitutional Convention, on the floor of the House of Representatives as they wrote the Second Amendment, all the
focus was about the militias. Now at the same time, those militias are not the National Guard. Every adult man, and
eventually every adult white man, was required to be in the militias and was required to own a gun, and to bring it
from home. So it was an individual right to fulfill the duty to serve in the militias. - - -
“. . . In 1991, former Chief Justice Warren Burger said that the idea that the
Second Amendment recognizes an individual right to gun ownership was ‘a fraud’ on the public. That was the
consensus, that was the conventional wisdom.
“The NRA {National Rifle Association}has been around for a long time. It used to be an
organization that focused on hunters and on training. In 1977, at the NRA's annual meeting, activists pushed out
the leadership and installed new leaders who were very intense, very dogmatic, and very focused on the Second
Amendment as their cause. It was called the ‘Revolt at Cincinnati.’ From there, the NRA and its allies waged
a 30-year legal campaign to change the way the courts and the country saw the Second Amendment. And they started
with scholarship. They supported a lot of scholars and law professors. They elected politicians. They changed the
positions of agencies of government. They got the Justice Department to reverse its position on what the
amendment meant. And then and only then did they go to court. So by the time the Supreme Court ruled, it sort of
felt like a ripe apple from the tree. - - -
“. . . The thing about the Heller decision . . . was that Justice Scalia said this
was the ‘vindication’ of his approach of originalism. But when it actually came time to doing the history, he
skipped over the actual writing and purpose of the Second Amendment. Out of 64 pages [in the decision], only 2 deal
with the militias. Which is what the founders thought they were talking about. One of the things that . . . people
{should} take away from this is that the original meaning is always important, but it is not the only way to
interpret the Constitution. - - -
“. . . {In} Heller, there was a big shift in how the case was argued: There were
many references to colonial America, and very little about current gun laws and current patterns of
violence. . .
“. . . since Heller, there have been dozens of cases in lower courts. Heller said:
Yes, there is an individual right, but it can be limited. And the extent of the limits wasn't really clear. Well,
dozens of judges have ruled since then, and overwhelmingly, they have upheld district gun laws. They've said, ‘Yes,
there's an individual right, but society, too, has a right to protect itself.’ So maybe Heller's importance
is not so great. And as this judicial consensus has developed across the country to uphold gun laws, we haven't
yet heard from the Supreme Court one more time. So I think the Supreme Court isn't done yet.” (Ref. 8)

ONE COUNTRY’S RESPONSE TO GUN VIOLENCE

Australia provides an example of what can happen with the application of modern and
reasonable gun control laws. In 1996 at the Port Arthur historic site in Tasmania, one of Australia's most popular
tourist destinations. A mass shooting occurred. “The dead numbered 35, with more than 20 others injured. . .
“This was not the first shooting massacre {Australia} had suffered, but it was the largest
in living memory. The tragedy ignited an explosion of public outrage, soul-searching and demands for better
regulation of guns. {Australia} changed {its} laws. As a result, gun deaths in Australia . . . dropped by
two-thirds, and {they} have never had another mass shooting.
“Every country is unique, but Australia is more similar to the US than is, say, Japan or
England. {They} have a frontier history and a strong gun culture. Each state and territory has its own gun laws, and
in 1996 these varied widely between the jurisdictions. At that time, Australia's firearm mortality rate per
population was 2.6/100,000 – about one-quarter the US rate, according to data from the Australian Bureau of
Statistics and the US Center for Disease Control. {By 2013} the rate {was} under 1/100,000 – less than one-tenth
the US rate. Those figures refer to all gun deaths – homicide, suicide and unintentional. If we focus on gun
homicide rates, the US outstrips Australia 30-fold.
“The 1996 reforms made gun laws stronger and uniform across Australia. Semi-automatic
rifles were prohibited (with narrow exceptions), and the world's biggest buyback saw nearly 700,000 guns removed
from circulation and destroyed. The licensing and registration systems of all states and territories were harmonized
and linked, so that a person barred from owning guns in one state can no longer acquire them in another. All gun
sales are subject to screening (universal background checks), which means you cannot buy a gun over the internet
or at a garage sale.
“Gun ownership requires a license, and every sale is subject to a 28-day waiting period.
The licensing process considers not only the applicant's age and criminal convictions, but also a range of other
factors relevant to possession of a product that is (a) designed for killing and (b) highly coveted by people who
should not have it. Relevant factors include the applicant's living circumstances, mental and physical health,
restraining orders or other encounters with the law, type of gun desired and for what purpose, safety training,
storage arrangements, and the public interest.
“Police make whatever inquiries they think necessary to inform the decision on whether
(or under what conditions) the license should be granted. This can include checking with neighborhood police, the
family doctor and especially spouses or partners. There are many red flags that do not appear in an automated
computer record of criminal convictions: substance abuse, mental instability, conflict at home or at work, to name
a few. Another risk factor is whether granting the license might make guns accessible to another household member
whose own circumstances would disqualify them from a license – for example, a depressed teenager or a person with
criminal convictions.
“The screening process serves to block dangerous or irresponsible candidates, but also
underscores for applicants and their families that bringing home a gun is a serious decision which affects the
entire household, and indeed the entire community. Many applicants abandon their request during the waiting period –
dissuaded by family members, or simply because the momentary enthusiasm for gun ownership passes.
“Australia also requires a justifiable reason for the type of weapon the applicant wants to
own. If you say you plan to hunt rabbits, your license doesn't allow you to {own} a high-powered rifle. And if you
already have a couple of guns suitable for hunting rabbits, it becomes increasingly difficult to justify acquiring
more. This is a measure against the accumulation of private arsenals. A significant legal and cultural difference
between our two countries: Australia doesn't accept anticipation of killing another person (self-defense) as a
reason for owning a gun. To qualify for a handgun license, you must belong to and regularly attend a target
shooting club.
“An important feature of a license is that it must be renewed every few years, and it can
be cancelled or suspended if the bearer no longer meets the standard required – for example, due to domestic
violence or a dangerous mental condition.
“Australia didn't ban guns. Hunting and shooting are still thriving. But by adopting laws
that give priority to public safety, {they} have saved thousands of lives.”
(Ref. 9)

REDUCING GUN VIOLENCE IN AMERICA

The answer to the question of “How do we reduce gun violence in America?” starts
with repealing the Second Amendment. Next, we have to get our legislators to stop succumbing to the
bullying demands of the National Rifle Association (NRA) and other gun fanatics that keep guns in the hands of
those who have little to no regard for human life and suffering. Finally, we need to begin the process of changing
the weak federal laws that allow almost anyone access to a wide variety of deadly weapons.

The truth is that Americans are hungry for action. The large majority of Americans want
innovative, common sense reforms. Some of the more obvious reforms include:

Ban large capacity ammunition magazines. Large capacity magazines, some of which can hold up to 100 rounds, are
the common thread uniting all of the major mass shootings in recent history. These magazines were prohibited under
federal law until Congress allowed the 1994 assault weapons ban to expire in 2004. There's simply no reason not to
ban them again.

Reinstitute the prohibition on automatic and semi-automatic firearms that was contained in The Federal Assault
Weapons Ban (AWB) act of 1994. The ban was passed by Congress in 1994, but was allowed to expire in 2004.

Require a background check every time a firearm is sold. Under current federal law, a prospective purchaser only
has to undergo a background check when buying a gun from a licensed dealer. If a person buys a gun from a so-called
"private seller"—as is the case in an estimated 40 percent of gun sales every year—no background check is federally
required. Uncounted numbers of convicted criminals and mentally ill individuals have exploited the "private sale
loophole" to gain access to guns.

Make interstate gun trafficking a federal crime, and increase penalties for so-called “straw-man” sales in which
someone buys a gun to deliver to a third party.

Make the owner of record of a firearm accountable for crimes committed with his or her gun

Require waiting periods for gun purchases so that background checks can be finished and to encourage buyers to
“cool off” from any violent impulses that might be motivating them to buy a weapon.

Require training for those wanting to be issued a gun license.

Establish and maintain a registry of weapons.

Increase funding of the Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) department to allow better enforcement
of existing laws and of the needed new legislation.

Improve access to funding and data for researchers. Congress has, time and again, succumbed to gun lobby
pressure to obstruct research into the development of smart, effective policies to fight gun violence, stopping the
flow of data as well as money. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) once played a key role in
supporting research into the public health concerns surrounding gun violence and the development of effective
firearms laws. That was until Congress singled out guns in the CDC's funding bill with language stating that,
“None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control…may be used to advocate or promote gun
control.”

As evidenced by Australia’s experience with stricter gun control regulations, gun
laws do matter![10]

Coupled with new and better gun control laws, there is need for increased gun law
enforcement and harsher penalties for gun law violations. While it is unreasonable to expect the elimination of
all gunshot inflicted deaths and injuries, it can be expected and it should be demanded that the number of such
deaths and injuries be greatly reduced, starting immediately. We as a nation need to put a stop to gun fanatic
lobbying and remove pandering politicians from office.

Repealing the Second Amendment is in keeping “with the spirit in which the Constitution
was drafted. The Bill of Rights belongs to a document that was designed to be changed; indeed, it was part of the
genius of our founders to allow for a process of amendment. The process is appropriately cumbersome, but it is not
impossible. Since its adoption in 1787, the American people have chosen to amend the Constitution 27 times.
A century ago, leaders like Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson raised serious questions about the Constitution.
Amendments soon followed, including provisions for a federal income tax, the direct election of U.S. senators,
women’s suffrage and the prohibition of alcohol. The 21st Amendment, which repealed prohibition, established the
precedent for {repealing the Second Amendment}. - - -
“The Constitution is mere human law. It is excellent law, but it is not divine law; it is
not revelation. We should be wary of amending the Bill of Rights. We should also be wary of idolizing it. The
Constitution is the man-made law of a self-governing people; the people, therefore, are entitled to ask basic,
critical questions about it. In our time, is a given constitutional provision a good law or a bad law? Does it
promote the common good? The secular dogma of constitutional immutability must yield to careful, critical
inquiry. - - -
“Repealing the Second Amendment will not create a culture of life in one stroke. Stricter
gun laws will not create a world free of violence, in which gun tragedies never occur. . . Though we cannot create
an absolutely safe world, we can create a safer world. This does not require an absolute ban on firearms. . . The
world {can be} a world with far fewer guns, a world in which no one has a right to own one . . .” (Ref. 2) In regard to the “right to own a gun”, the violent world around us demands
that gun ownership should be taken not as a right but as a privilege granted by the appropriate governmental
body.

Today, in the 21st century, the time has long since passed for repealing the outdated and
irrelevant Second Amendment to the constitution and for instituting meaningful federal and state laws to put an end
to the escalation of gun crimes in the United States.

Alternatively, the Supreme Court can rule, once-and-for-all, that the Second Amendment
applies only to the maintenance of a “well regulated militia”, which was the original intent of the authors of the
Bill of Rights. In today’s America, the need for this “well regulated militia” does not exist and there are
none. The Second Amendment may have been relevant in 1776 – it is not relevant in the 21st century, more
than 240 years later! We cannot go on pretending to be living in a long-gone outdated era with the result
that tens of thousands of Americans are being killed and maimed each and every year with guns. We can and must do
better.